News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
Elon Musk
Tesla preps for a harsh potential reality if Musk comp vote doesn’t go to plan
A successful vote for Tesla would see the compensation package get approved. But there is always the possibility of a rejection, which would likely see Musk leave the company.
Tesla could be forced to look for a new CEO in the coming months, as a crucial November 6 Shareholder Meeting vote will determine whether Elon Musk will stick around.
A major vote is coming up at the 2025 Tesla Shareholder Meeting, as investors will determine whether Musk should be given a new compensation plan that would award him up to $1 trillion and more than one-fourth of the total voting power within the company.
Tesla board chair reiterates widely unmentioned point of Musk comp plan
A successful vote for Tesla would see the compensation package get approved. But there is always the possibility of a rejection, which would likely see Musk leave the company.
“My fundamental concern with regard to how much voting control I have at Tesla is if I go ahead and build this enormous robot army, can I just be ousted at some point in the future? That’s my biggest concern,” Musk said at last week’s Earnings Call. “That’s what it comes down to in a nutshell. I don’t feel comfortable wielding that robot army if I don’t have at least a strong influence.”
Tesla Board of Directors Head Robyn Denholm has been on somewhat of a PR tour over the past few days, answering questions about the compensation plan, which is among the biggest issues currently for the company.
Denholm told Bloomberg yesterday that Tesla investors need to be prepared for Musk to abandon ship if the package is not approved, which brings on a new question: Who would take over the CEO role?
That is a question Denholm also answered yesterday, bringing forth the conclusion that Tesla would not look for an outside hire if Musk were to leave the company. Instead, it would promote someone internally.
The way it was reported by Bloomberg and Reuters seems to make it seem as if Tesla is preparing for the worst, as it states the company “is looking at internal CEO candidates,” not preparing to do so.
Of the executives at Tesla who immediately come to mind as ideal candidates for a potential takeover should Musk leave, Tesla China President Tom Zhu and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy both come to mind. Zhu has monumental executive experience already, as he was appointed to the role of Senior VP of Automotive back in December 2022.
He then returned to China in 2024.
It seems Tesla wants to align its future, with or without Musk, on the same path that it is currently on, and internal candidates might have a better idea of what that looks like and truly means.
News
Tesla Full Self Driving (FSD) is nearing approval in a new country
As per the official, Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system could be enabled in Israel in the near future.
It appears that Tesla FSD (Supervised) is heading to a new country soon, at least based on comments from Israel’s Transport and Road Safety Minister Miri Regev.
As per the official, Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system could be enabled in Israel in the near future.
Israeli drivers are pushing for FSD rollout
While Tesla’s FSD is already operational in markets like the U.S., Canada, and Australia, Israeli owners have long been unable to use the feature due to regulatory barriers. Despite its premium price tag, however, numerous Tesla owners in Israel have noted that the technology’s safety benefits, at least when approved for real-world use in the country, justify its cost.
It was then no surprise that nearly 1,000 Tesla owners in Israel have already petitioned the government to greenlight FSD’s domestic release in Israel. In a post on X, Regev seemed to confirm that FSD is indeed coming to Israel. “I’ve received the many referrals from Tesla drivers in Israel! Tesla drivers? Soon you won’t need to hold the steering wheel,” she wrote in her post.
FSD’s regulatory support in Israel
Regev stated that her Ministry views promoting innovative technologies as essential to improving both road safety and smart mobility. A working group led by Moshe Ben-Zaken, Director General of the Ministry of Transportation has reportedly been tasked to finalize the approval process, coordinating with regulatory and safety agencies to ensure compliance with international standards.
In a comment to Geektime, Israel’s Ministry of Transportation and Road Safety noted that Regev is indeed supporting the release of FSD in the country. “Minister Regev sees great importance in promoting innovative technologies, and in particular in the entry of advanced driving systems (FSD) into the Israeli market, as part of the ministry’s policy to encourage innovation, safety, and smart transportation,” the Ministry stated.
Investor's Corner
Bank of America raises Tesla PT to $471, citing Robotaxi and Optimus potential
The firm also kept a Neutral rating on the electric vehicle maker, citing strong progress in autonomy and robotics.
Bank of America has raised its Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) price target by 38% to $471, up from $341 per share.
The firm also kept a Neutral rating on the electric vehicle maker, citing strong progress in autonomy and robotics.
Robotaxi and Optimus momentum
Bank of America analyst Federico Merendi noted that the firm’s price target increase reflects Tesla’s growing potential in its Robotaxi and Optimus programs, among other factors. BofA’s updated valuation is based on a sum-of-the-parts (SOTP) model extending through 2040, which shows the Robotaxi platform accounting for 45% of total value. The model also shows Tesla’s humanoid robot Optimus contributing 19%, and Full Self-Driving (FSD) and the Energy segment adding 17% and 6% respectively.
“Overall, we find that TSLA’s core automotive business represents around 12% of the total value while robotaxi is 45%, FSD is 17%, Energy Generation & Storage is around 6% and Optimus is 19%,” the Bank of America analyst noted.
Still a Neutral rating
Despite recognizing long-term potential in AI-driven verticals, Merendi’s team maintained a Neutral rating, suggesting that much of the optimism is already priced into Tesla’s valuation.
“Our PO revision is driven by a lower cost of equity capital, better Robotaxi progress, and a higher valuation for Optimus to account for the potential entrance into international markets,” the analyst stated.
Interestingly enough, Tesla’s core automotive business, which contributes the lion’s share of the company’s operations today, represents just 12% of total value in BofA’s model.
Tesla preps for a harsh potential reality if Musk comp vote doesn’t go to plan
Tesla Full Self Driving (FSD) is nearing approval in a new country
Bank of America raises Tesla PT to $471, citing Robotaxi and Optimus potential
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoSpaceX posts Starship booster feat that’s so nutty, it doesn’t even look real
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla Full Self-Driving gets an offer to be insured for ‘almost free’
-
News2 weeks agoElon Musk confirms Tesla FSD V14.2 will see widespread rollout
-
News2 weeks agoTesla is adding an interesting feature to its centerscreen in a coming update
-
News2 weeks agoTesla launches new interior option for Model Y
-
News2 weeks agoTesla widens rollout of new Full Self-Driving suite to more owners
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla CEO Elon Musk’s $1 trillion pay package hits first adversity from proxy firm
-
News1 week agoTesla might be doing away with a long-included feature with its vehicles